CanPol - The only reasonable choice

[Krill]

Doesn't matter if the allegations are true, most people are stupid enough to be swayed by the allegations alone.

And Harper is an idiot if he did have knowledge. I mean, with the power micromanaging gives to the individual, so comes the responsibilty of all that knowledge...

[Wezil]

MP's are back at work. The political news continues.

This one's going to be interesting.

OTTAWA - The federal Conservative government has reintroduced two Senate reform bills, warning that it will support abolition of the upper chamber if the changes are blocked once again.

One bill imposes a term limit of eight years on senators while the other creates a process to elect senators.

"(The bills) will allow Canadians to pass judgment on the conduct of senators," said Peter Van Loan, the minister responsible for democratic reform.

"Senators will now have to be accountable for the decisions they make, the work they do and the pay they receive. Accountability - the basis of democracy - will finally come to the Senate."

With one exception, the bills are identical to those introduced in the last session of Parliament, which stalled in the face of objections from opposition parties and provinces.

Van Loan served notice that this is the last chance for reforming the Senate.


"We are open to different approaches to the details of Senate reform but we will not compromise on one fundamental aspect: The Senate must change," he said.

"And if that change cannot happen through reform, then we believe that the Senate should be abolished."

Prime Minister Stephen Harper has hinted that his government will support an NDP motion, which may be introduced later this week, calling for a referendum on Senate abolition during the next federal election.

Van Loan noted that abolition is not the government's "preferred route" but it won't wait forever to achieve reform.

"If our legislation is blocked, it is a route Canadians will want to see us travel."

In the last parliamentary session, the government introduced the term limit bill first in the Senate. The Liberal-dominated chamber ultimately refused to vote on the bill until and unless the Supreme Court rules that such a change can be done without provincial consent.

This time, the government is introducing the bill in the House of Commons, the more usual route. It is hoping that if the bill passes muster with MPs, unelected senators will be compelled to drop their objections rather than defy the will of the Commons.

In response to criticism, the government has changed the bill slightly to clarify that senators would be allowed to serve only one eight-year term.

The Senate election bill, which was allowed to languish on the order paper last session, remains unchanged. It creates a process by which voters in each province would elect nominees to the Senate, with the winners to be appointed by the prime minister to fill vacancies in the chamber.

Both bills have drawn criticism from a number of provinces, including Quebec and Ontario, which contend that changes to the Senate require a constitutional amendment approved by at least seven provinces.

Van Loan continued to insist Tuesday that the changes are modest and incremental and can be done unilaterally, with the approval of the federal Parliament alone.

http://cnews.canoe.ca/CNEWS/Canada/2007/11/13/4652589-cp.html

Looks like a showdown with the Senate is looming.

[Krill]

So...the senate will be elected, but vacancies will be decided by the majority party in the lower chamber...seems a little undemocratic considering some senators won;t be elected...

[Wezil]

Originally posted by Krill
Doesn't matter if the allegations are true, most people are stupid enough to be swayed by the allegations alone.

And Harper is an idiot if he did have knowledge. I mean, with the power micromanaging gives to the individual, so comes the responsibilty of all that knowledge...

Yes, the "brand image" thing will taint the Conservatives to some extent even if not true. The ironic part of all this is that Harper's roots are the former Reform Party. The RP did serious damage to the old Progressive Conservatives in the '93 election (the PCs were all but wiped out) on the 1st go around of the Airbus scandal. Now Harper may have to help wear the scandal himself.

Did Harper know about the letter? Either, 1) He missed it as part of his micromanaging, 2) He indeed knew about it, or 3) A staffer (senior obviously) read the letter and intentionally kept it from Harper. It's hard to look good under any of those scenarios.

[Wezil]

Originally posted by Krill
So...the senate will be elected, but vacancies will be decided by the majority party in the lower chamber...seems a little undemocratic considering some senators won;t be elected...

The entire Senate issue is a hot button in this country for a variety of reasons. I'm sure we'll see other Cdns post on this issue. Most agree it needs some sort of reform but getting people to agree on what that reform should look like is like herding cats.

This issue will play well to Harper's base. I'm not sure where others will fall on the issue if push comes to shove with the Senate (say if they refuse to pass or even vote on the Commons Bill). The opposition of the two largest provinces may doom a referendum on the question.

[Krill]

Yeah, because under 1) Who wants a PM who can't hack that level on MM actually doing that level of MM; he should delagate. 2) He's corrupt and 3) undemocratic...

...oh well, at least Canadians get interesting politics to watch.

[Krill]

Originally posted by Wezil


The entire Senate issue is a hot button in this country for a variety of reasons. I'm sure we'll see other Cdns post on this issue. Most agree it needs some sort of reform but getting people to agree on what that reform should look like is like herding cats.

This issue will play well to Harper's base. I'm not sure where others will fall on the issue if push comes to shove with the Senate (say if they refuse to pass or even vote on the Commons Bill). The opposition of the two largest provinces may doom a referendum on the question.

Well, if there were to be a referendum, would it be 1 vote per province, or 1 vote per person of the voting population? I'm obviously not all that knowledgeable about the Cdn politics...

[Wezil]

Originally posted by Krill



Well, if there were to be a referendum, would it be 1 vote per province, or 1 vote per person of the voting population? I'm obviously not all that knowledgeable about the Cdn politics...

Np. I'm just shocked you're even interested. I can only presume you are bored.

Since he is proposing (threatening?) the referendum at the next General Election I will presume it would be 1 vote per person. If you are getting at my comments about the big provinces opposing I will explain. The gov's of Ontario and Quebec could certainly rouse provincial voter opposition to such a ballot question. Working against their advocacy would be the gut feeling that most Cdns have that something is seriously broken with the Senate.

[Krill]

Well, I got bored of revising molecular symmetry

Either way though...why would the govs of those two provinces even care? It would be giving their people a greater sway in national politics...I don't see how anyone can campaign against the Conservatives proposals except saying that the senate would not be 100% democratically elected and even that is like shooting yourself in teh foot.

[Wezil]

Originally posted by Krill
Either way though...why would the govs of those two provinces even care? It would be giving their people a greater sway in national politics...I don't see how anyone can campaign against the Conservatives proposals except saying that the senate would not be 100% democratically elected and even that is like shooting yourself in teh foot.

Well quite frankly I'm probably not the best person to make the pro-Senate argument. I'm in the camp that would prefer to see it abolished outright. As a province I'd wager Ontario would exercise even more sway and influence in a single chamber government. Just my opinion.

Pro-Senate? Two arguments for you. 1) It was intended as a regional counterbalance to the rep by pop Commons. Even the smallest provinces have decent rep in the Senate. 2) It is a check against the lower house. While almost impossible to stop or kill legislation outright, the Senate can cause considerable delay and much grief to a governing party. Particularly if they are on the "popular" side of an issue (I refer you to the Mulroney gov bringing in the GST - they got it passed but the Senate caused them migraines).

[Wezil]

A recent poll on the Senate

Ottawa, ON – In a week where the Senate was the focus of debate, and amid calls for a national referendum on the topic, a new Ipsos Reid Poll conducted exclusively on behalf of CanWest News Service and Global Television reveals that two thirds (64%) of Canadians either ‘strongly’ (35%) or ‘somewhat’ (30%) support the undertaking of a referendum to determine the future of the Senate as a parliamentary institution in Canada. Just one quarter (26%) of Canadians ‘strongly’ (13%) or ‘somewhat oppose’ (13%) the idea of having a referendum on the future of the Senate.


Earlier in the week, NDP Leader Jack Layton called the Senate ‘outdated and obsolete’, calling for its unqualified abolishment, and for the question to be put forward to Canadians in a national referendum.


With Canadians apparently supporting Mr. Layton’s idea of a national referendum on the topic, supposing there was a referendum where Canadians were given two options – to keep the senate or to abolish the senate – more Canadians would opt to abolish it (45%) than to keep it (41%). One in seven (14%), though, do not know which option they would choose.


Prime Minister Harper, though, has adopted the position that the Senate must first agree to be reformed, or face abolition. But regardless of whether or not there is a referendum on the future of the Senate, the majority (52%) of Canadians agree with Prime Minister Harper’s position and believe that the Senate should ‘be reformed to make it, for instance, an elected body’. One quarter (24%) of Canadians are of the opinion that the Senate ‘be done away with completely’, while just 16% of Canadians believe that it should just ‘be kept as it is’.

From here: http://www.ipsos-na.com/news/pressrelease.cfm?id=3717

[Krill]

So it looks like all Harper has to do is be a little careful and he gets what he wants...

[Flubber]

Originally posted by Wezil



Since he is proposing (threatening?) the referendum at the next General Election I will presume it would be 1 vote per person. If you are getting at my comments about the big provinces opposing I will explain. The gov's of Ontario and Quebec could certainly rouse provincial voter opposition to such a ballot question. Working against their advocacy would be the gut feeling that most Cdns have that something is seriously broken with the Senate.

I am just wondering how that provincial opposition would go if there was no change in the numbers of senators for each province.

Take Quebec- Its bad that you the Quebec people elect your senators because it is better they are appointed by the Liberals and Conservatives that actually form governments?? One would think that sovereigntists woul;d love the idea of being able to elect people.

I think that the gut feeling would win out. Tell me what compelling argument could anyone raise for the status quo? If the main change is election over appointment, what argument can be made in favor of appointment?

You see, I can see all kinds of popular arguments in favor of election. A "NO " vote could come from those that vote no since they prefer abolition-- IN fact that might be the strongest "no" faction if the PM lets it be known that abolition will be the next attempt if reform is impossible


I ctually think this is an area where the opposition parties might find it best to just quietly go along. Can the Liberals really hope to make hay supporting an institution that is mainly filled with old Liberal party loyalists. Their support for the current senate could and would be painted as continued cronyism

[Krill]

[q=Flubber]You see, I can see all kinds of popular arguments in favor of election. A "NO " vote could come from those that vote no since they prefer abolition-- IN fact that might be the strongest "no" faction if the PM lets it be known that abolition will be the next attempt if reform is impossible[/q]

It'd be interesting to see Harper try to lsoe the referendum vote and then actually play ball to get it abolished.

[Wezil]

Flubber - As I mentioned, I'm not a champion for the Senate. The other aspect of provincial opposition of course would be legal. As much as Van Loan claims the proposed changes are "modest and incremental" I think they are anything but. These would be serious changes and the courts may have something to say on the issue if the Feds don't get provincial support.